Agile Adoption: Two styles contrasted

Imagine a smallish organization with 10 Scrum teams (or what will be 10 Scrum teams).  I want you to be thinking of a relatively uncomplicated situation.

Imagine that you offered two ways to implement agile. Let us assume that we believe that agile will lead to better lives for the workers and better lives for the customers.  And, indeed, better lives for all.  And to a fairly high degree.

Option 1. Top-down, via 'convincing'

You get a senior sponsor.  He says some good words.

You hire SMs, coaches, some agile people.

You get an 'agile committee,' not unlike a sponsor committee for a large project.

And the small group of agile people do things to make the agile transformation happen.

But, importantly, this approach does not allow the whole group to self-organize.  The Leader or a small group 

imposes an order on it.

And you are, and everyone knows you are, trying to 'make agile happen.'

Two commonplace sayings in change management.

"People do not resist change, they resist being changed."

"People are remarkably good at doing what they want to do."  Little's Second Law

 

Option 2. Similar, but allow self-organization

This approach is very similar, really, to me.  But with some very important differences.

You skip the 'agile committee.'  Because you know that committees almost always waste time and do nothing.  In fact, that's WHY we have committees.  It's what we do to ideas we wish to kill.

The agile advocates might still meet and talk, and get smarter.  But they do not attempt to decide for the group, nor to force the group to accept 'agile' (however it might be defined).

But an important difference: we invite everyone to help solve the problem or problems, to make agile work for us.

And we use Open Space to allow the whole group to self-organize within the context of a vision.  (Sample vision: "We want to experiment with agile and see if it will work for us, and maybe give us some great results.")   The self-organization is highlighted by two events bounding a timebox of change.  The opening and closing events are done using Open Space (some of you know OST).   And they learn how to self-organize by repeating this regularly (say, every 2-3 months at first).

In this way 'the wisdom of the crowd' is harnessed, in part for its wisdom.  And what is not working well in the formal structure is avoided.  Everyone can contribute and, particularly, the wisdom of the informal people is harnessed more.

But more importantly, we allow them, who are actually doing the real work, to tell us what their biggest concerns are.  And then we (all of us...management and workers) address those concerns and issues in priority order.

And they all become engaged.  They start to think of it as their own show (not completely, but to a large degree).  They are acting to help realize the vision.

BTW, management does not give up on introducing agile ideas to the group.  We have to be mindful that most of them do not understand agile at first, and have never experienced its real benefits.  So lots of explanations of the counter-intuitive aspects of agile are needed.  But the explanations are offered, not forced.

And management is very mindful about telling the story.  Stories about the past, the present and the future.  Stories that help them see the truth better, that agile is helping (well, assuming that is the truth now).  Stories that give the change meaning for them.  Everyone is, to some degree, telling stories, but management actively engages in forming the new story for the new culture.

Note: In these ways, we actively engage in culture change.

But 'our' attitude is different.  We are not 'forcing' these ideas on them (the ill-informed knowledge workers).  We are instead inviting them to experiment with these ideas.

Just as Taiichi Ohno suggested.

 

Results

It is, of course, a bit more complex than this.  There are other issues to consider, beyond the scope of this short blog piece.

But which Option will have more success?

This is your question.  And, in my experience, a huge difference hangs on your choice.

It seems to me that Option 2 is far more likely to realize the real benefits of Agile.  Potentially huge benefits.

Option 1 will still probably get you some benefits.  Maybe the Teams will be 20% better.  Probably.  And you don't have to give up the illusion that you can control people.

With Option 2 you can get 100-400% improvements in productivity.  We certainly can argue exactly why it happens (Scrum, Agile, self-organization, CAS, etc, etc.)

But to do Option 2 you must give up the illusion of control of people.  It feels hard to some of us.  It is not, really.  (Still, any change in paradigm is hard for those wedded to that paradigm.  Be sympathetic, as you will want them, in a different context, to be sympathetic to you.)

For senior managers: Asking the middle managers to give up the illusion of control of people can sound very dangerous to them.  You have to work with them, over and over, and get them comfortable.  Or, failing that, no matter which option you take, experience shows you are likely to end up with some problems and a relatively weak implementation of agile.

***

BTW, Option 2 is explained in more detail as part of Open Agile Adoption.  You might start reading here:

http://newtechusa.net/agile/open-agile-adoption-explained/

It has been tried and tested, to some degree.  (Open Space has decades of being tried and tested, and if done professionally, is very robust.)  OAA is relatively new.  But I hope you see its power.  I invite you to consider it.  And it works both for new agile adoptions and well as for a 're-start' of a troubled agile adoption.

Option 1 has been tried in myriad variations.  Pretty clear that unless you have a charismatic leader or a culture that already 'wants' to do agile, you are going to get a 'meh' adoption.  Very likely.  Yes, some benefits (20%), and a few teams doing well for a while.  But to me, only getting 20% is 'meh.'

Let me say it a different way.  I think if the adoption does not harness the will of the people in wanting the change, the change results will be 'meh'.  OAA is one way to engage the people.  I would be very interested in any other ways.  But for now, you may want to consider OAA.

Scrum 201: Desire

Any sports coach knows that the Team must have desire.

In my classes I talk to the people about how much improvement they expect to make in 1 year. With 1 team.  Often it is in the 20% range.

And I use Henry Ford’s famous quote: “Whether you think you can, or you can’t, you’re right.”  So, I usually think that 100% improvement in 1 year is realistic for a specific team.

As a coach or a SM, if they are going to achieve hyperproductivity, the Team must want it.  And, to some degree, they must believe it is possible.

So, the question becomes, how do you get them to have the desire?

This is not an easy thing. In fact, you cannot make them have desire.  But, if there is something inside them, you can draw on that.  You can blow on that ember of desire, and make it blaze.

Sometimes you can give them a challenge. To be the best team in your company, or your state.  For example. Or to be much better than they are today, and prove that with metrics.

In Lean, we have the idea, expressed in a Lexus ad, of the ‘continuous pursuit of perfection.’  So, we establish a vision of perfection. (Usually we know this vision is not perfect, or later we see it is not really perfect.  But it motivates us; it gives us something concrete that seems within our grasp.)  So, we use the vision of perfection to build the desire.

Little’s Second Law: People are remarkably good at doing what they want to do.

So, if you can help them build their desire, in a concrete way, then they can start to make the changes that can drive tremendous improvement.

Freedom

For reasons unknown, I ran into a picture I took of a statue of Jefferson in Paris (it is along the Seine, near the Musee d'Orsay).

Then I saw something else which led me to this quote from Jefferson, mainly about the meaning of July 4th.  I think it has a wider meaning, and so I quote it here:

… May it be to the world, what I believe it will be, (to some parts sooner, to others later, but finally to all,) the Signal of arousing men to burst the chains, under which monkish ignorance and superstition had persuaded them to bind themselves, and to assume the blessings & security of self-government. That form which we have substituted, restores the free right to the unbounded exercise of reason and freedom of opinion. All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately, by the grace of god. These are grounds of hope for others. For ourselves, let the annual return of this day forever refresh our recollections of these rights, and an undiminished devotion to them.

Do we each for ourselves, and for those we manage, respect the opportunities and responsibilities of freedom?

Adam Smith described well how the invisible hand allows the economic participants to enjoy the economic benefits of freedom.  In, say, a country.  We are still learning how the same basic things happen in a group of 100 people.

I do not think waiting for others to tell us what to do, or to wait for them to change, or to wait for them to fix some things, I do not think these things will enhance our freedom. Or really do much for our lives.

Little's Second Law

One day I was writing down quotes to be printed in a HUGE font and put in the team room. On that day, I thought it would help (and actually, I think for that team, it did help).

Anyway, this sentence came to me:

People are remarkably good at doing what they want to do.

Apparently no one has ever said that, so I now, for fun, I call it Little's Second Law. To be honest, God gave me the phrase -- I did not work to figure it out; it was just there in my brain in one moment.

Again, to have a little fun with Little's Law (which I agree with, but definitely did not invent), I call it Little's Second Law.

The other day I was doing a workshop, and someone remarked that people were having fun and being a lot more creative. They implied, somehow, that if a person really wanted to do something, they put a lot more energy into it. And the results were always better. Someone said 5x more new ideas (of equal value) come out in that situation.

Of course, to many of you, this is obvious. And obviously, intellectually I have had that same idea before. Hence Little's Second Law. BUT...it's remarkable how dumb I can be, and I never quite fully made the connection. Or, at least I can say that that conversation in that workshop was an "AHA!" moment for me.

So, two key ideas result for me for Scrum teams:
1. Product Owners: It is up to you mainly to get them to feel that they want to do your (or the customers') stories.
2. Maybe, at least some of the time, we should (we=everyone, including the team) let them do just what they want to do. And see what happens. This is kind of the idea with the Google 20% time.

Little's Second Law

Little's Law is a nice idea that tells us: we want small batches of work. Smaller, always smaller.
See here for a start: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little%27s_law
This is from a John Little at Case Western Reserve. And it is fairly old.

One day this phrase came to me: People are remarkably good at doing what they want to do.

I call it, in fun, Little's Second Law. And I have mentioned it before.

A friend said: You must talk about this more. But is it not obvious?

This law has two sides. On the one we have: Where there is a will, there's a way. If they really want to do it, they will overcome any obstacle. These human values of persistence and wiliness are both Odyssean and Protean.

The other side is what I call the Ebet principle. My now wonderful sister was once 12 when I was 15. Her older brother, in his wisdom, would remind her that she (a) should clean up the den, (b) do the kitchen dishes, (c) finish her homework, and (d) clean up her room. And by the age of 12, she already knew 1500 ways to assure that anything her older brother asked her to do would (1) not get done, and (2) mostly likely the lack of action would be blamed on her brother.

When they don't want to do it, they can often make sure it fails.

As a practical matter, this has one specific meaning (among many others): The ScrumMaster must get the team to want to do Scrum.

We do well to remember these basic laws of human nature.

Little's Second Law: "People are remarkably good at doing..."

Little's Law is justly famous. I highly advise that your firm think about it, and use it as a justification for reducing the number of projects "in the system". And for having team members only work on one project. There are other reasons to do this, but Little's Law is enough.

Now I want to invent Little's Second Law. (This time it is a different Mr. Little, your humble blogster.)

It is: "People are remarkably good at doing what they want to do."

This is a law of human nature. Linked to the top value of Agile (in my opinion): Humanity or People. And linked to one of my favorite documents, The Declaration of Independence.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

Since we are free, we do what we want. We can be advised or commanded, but we will ultimately do what we want (and this is probably a good thing, especially if you want us to do it well at all).

In one sense, it is another way of saying "where there's a will, there's a way."

The law also directly implies that people are remarkably good at not doing what they don't want to do.

To me, the law suggests to managers and those on teams who would lead, that they convince and influence people to understand why they want to do something. You are not changing motivation, you are revealing motivation.

To me, it implies one should work with good people who generally will want to do the right thing, once they see and understand it. If you work in alignment with the energy of this law, success can come easily. If you work against this law, success can be difficult.

In my opinion, Lean-Agile has this law embedded in many of its practices. For example, it reminds me of one of the Poppendiecks' 7 principles: Respect People.

A few comments about what this law does not say or imply (in my opinion).

This law does not imply that people will always want the right things. This law does not imply that people will always have the courage to do the right thing. The law does not imply that people will never be lazy.

Origin: I am fond of quotes, as some of you will have guessed by now. This phrase came to me one day, as I was thinking of some quotes. In fact, I thought it was a quote for a moment. And I remember thinking: "This is a bit mushy to be a quote. Really it is kind of obvious." And certainly it was to me. But the phrase would not leave me. I used it in several teaching and coaching situations, and it struck me as an obvious truth, a truth that some managers seem to want to avoid. (I suppose many of them want to live in the fantasy that they can control other people. To the degree this might really be true, this is slavery, a most abhorrent thing.) And it is a truth that many of us, including myself, do not recognize and work in accordance with often enough.

By and by, it struck me that this phrase, which just came to me, was important enough to call a law. Surely it is not without meaning that "it just came to me". So I call it Little's Second Law rather modestly, and somewhat jokingly. And in deference to Little's Law, which also needs more recognition.